But sooner or later they begin to make reservations and draw back. They suspect Forster is not quiet playing their game; they feel he is challenging them as well as what they dislike. And they are right. For all his long commitment to the doctrines of liberalism, Forster is at war with the liberal imagination. These tendencies are related to the lack of the sense of the past, which traditionally distinguishes American culture. These features are grounded in the way American culture usually values individual autonomy over societal relationships. In this essay, Trilling argues that the novel, as it evolves from the eighteenth century on, is a literary genre which specificity is to deal with the question of reality.
This opposition between reality and appearance is, for Trilling, a social one, as it is grounded in the tense relationship between the individual and society. In other words, it is the opposition between what the individual really is and what she or he appears to be to society.
His definition of manners points to the social dimension of culture, which is precisely the subject of the novel. It does not make for an equal society but for one in which there is a constant shifting of classes, a frequent change in the personnel of the dominant class. Thus, argues Trilling, snobbery, hypocrisy, and class are three pivotal subjects of the novelistic tradition.
He tries to understand this resistance by inquiring into the relationship of the American liberal imagination to reality. For them, the opposition between reality and appearance is not a component of reality itself, but an opposition that excludes appearance from reality. In his later book, Trilling resumes his old interest in the tense relation between reality and appearance, which is at the core of the novelistic genre.
Firstly, a congruency between what someone really is and what he or she is aware of being. Trilling, 3. Finally, sincerity implies a congruency between what someone really is and what he or she professes to be to society. Be true! It is no mere coincidence, then, that both the emergence of the idea of sincerity and the genesis of the novel can be located in the early modern period.
This dependency grounds the paradox of sincerity. Society requires of us that we present ourselves as being sincere, and the most efficacious way of satisfying this demand is to see it that we really are sincere, that we actually are what we want our community to know we are. In short, we play the role of being ourselves, we sincerely act the part of the sincere person, with the result that a judgment may be passed upon our sincerity that it is not authentic ibid. Society may corrupt the sincerity of an individual, but, paradoxically, any individual depends on society to be sincere.
Authenticity, on the other hand, dispenses or presumably dispenses the relationship between the individual and society, as it dispenses both the congruency between what someone appears to be and what she or he really is and the congruency between what someone truly is and the general social values.
The only congruency required to reach the state of authenticity is the congruency between one and oneself. But where and what is this authentic self? The therapeutic process of psychoanalysis would seem to constitute a very considerable effort of self-knowledge, a strenuous attempt to identify and overcome in the mental life of the individual an inauthenticity which is not the less to be developed because it is enforced and universal. And this is so not only by reason of the nature of what has been concealed and is now to be discovered, because, that is, the idea of authenticity readily attaches itself to instinct, especially libidinal instinct, but also because a profound inauthenticity of the mental life is implied by the nature of neurosis, by its being a disguised substitute for something else.
The search for authenticity, then, tends to destroy the cultural particularities that fashion a singular self. If the authentic self is a self that is not socially and culturally fashioned, we may assume the possible existence of a self fashioned by a pre-cultural human nature, a self that is, therefore, universally human. How can a universal self be a singular self? A problem that was at the heart not only of the sociological, anthropological, and philosophical theories of modernity, but also at the heart of some literary works at the turn of the twentieth century.
Simmel seems to be implying that the less a person is subject to the pressures of communitarian relationships, the less his or her identity is defined by his or her belonging to a group — be it family, church, corporation, country, social position etc. This idea is at the core of a humanistic conception of the self and of the modern notion of individuality — tributaries of both Enlightened and Romantic traditions —, which evolved from the second half of the eighteenth century and reached its apex during the nineteenth century.
This new historical meaning of culture became intertwined with the idea that the self is culturally constituted. This simultaneity is at the heart of the paradox that marks the concept of authenticity. But how is this possible if it is culture itself that constitutes the self? Trilling, Being the symbol of a mere social appearance, the mask was also a sign of inauthenticity, as it had been a sign of insincerity. But, paradoxically, using a mask was deemed the way to become free from the culturally fashioned self, to become authentic.
Wilde was aware that this enterprise was only possible through art.
Only the imagination, Trilling argues, can give us access and insight into these realms and only the imagination can ground a reflective and considered, rather than programmatic and dogmatic, liberalism. Aumentar la imagen. He was not the first English professor to feel alienated from his discipline, and he was certainly not the last. Ex Libris bookplate to front paste-down. Louis Menand is the Anne T. Kennys Bookshop and Art Galleries Ltd. He registered his reaction in the journal: Feeling of total alienation from the academic profession and that I must not any more identify myself with it at such occasions.
Therefore, though Trilling does not deal particularly with the American case, when he analyses the appreciation for authenticity associated with modern literature, in Sincerity and Authenticity , he does not refrain from specifying the nature of American sincerity and American authenticity in the book. Quoting a well-known George Eliot anecdote, Trilling contends that both English common sense and English literature are marked by the idea of categorical duty to which the individual has to submit in order to preserve his or her authenticity:.
They would all of them appear to be in agreement that the person who accepts his situation, whatever it may be, as given and necessary condition of his life will be sincere beyond question. He will be sincere and authentic, sincere because authentic. Indeed, the novelists understand class to be a chief condition of personal authenticity; it is their assumption that the individual who accepts what a rubric of the Anglican catechism calls his 'station and its duties' is pretty sure to have a quality of integral selfhood [ His sentiment of being, his awareness of his discrete and personal existence, derives from his sentiment of class.
And the converse was also true. The novelists gave judicious approval to upward social mobility so far as it could be achieved by energy and talent and without loss of probity. But they mercilessly scrutinized those of their characters who were ambitious to rise in the world, vigilant for signs of such weakening of the fabric of personal authenticity as might follow from the abandonment of an original class position.
It was their presumption that such weakening was likely to occur; the names given to its evidences, to the indication of diminished authenticity, were snobbery and vulgarity. The English concept of gentleman is perhaps the most eloquent manifestation of this. To the English versions of sincerity and authenticity Trilling compares the American versions of these values, which is intertwined with the idea of innocence. Henry James is not simple on the subject of anything that has to do with Americans, but the general tendency of his work would seem to confirm the opinion which once prevailed — how curious it now seems!
The American innocence greatly differs from the sincerity that characterizes the relationship between individual and society in English culture. English sincerity is grounded in the social sphere. American sincerity — we should say American innocence — is pre-social. It is an Adamic, prelapsarian innocence. Just as there exists a dynamic relation between the values of sincerity and authenticity in English literature, there is a similar dynamic in American literature. Americans, we might say - D. A composer himself, the nephew is relegated to ostracism, while his uncle receives all the laurels of fame.
The dialectical relationship between career failure and the constant pursuit of success, in addition to an exacerbated discipline, leads the nephew to develop the ability to mimic the social roles that may be useful to him in gaining career benefits. Under the heavy brows, the eyes lived with the life of the contemplating mind.
For the eyes showed, or so Vincent felt, a life beyond the words that Buxton was speaking. And, far more than the words, it was the eyes that were giving Vincent his strange new sense of well-being. Robert Oppenheimer in mind. He was not soon to forget them, was to think of them, all unconscious, unintending, preoccupied though they were, as the source of the deepest intellectual sounding to which he had ever been exposed. Something real is at stake in the pursuit of an illusion.
It would have been interesting to learn how Trilling made things turn out for Vincent. The explanation usually given is that he was wounded by the reviews, particularly one in Commentary , by Robert Warshow. Warshow was a likable man, but he was a coldhearted critic, and he knew where to slip in the knife. He must have felt that this was family.
It was family, and so there is a back-story. Commentary had been founded by the American Jewish Committee two years before, in Its editor was Elliot Cohen, and Trilling was invited to join the advisory board. He declined. Soon after it appeared, Trilling had a dream in which he watched three adolescents murder a bus driver: they pat him gently on the neck while they explain that they are going to kill him. There were rumors that he had changed his name from Cohen, and remarks about his Anglophilia and his genteel manners. The case is not complicated.
The family was middle class when Trilling was a student, but the parents suffered during the Depression and afterward, and Trilling had to help support them. Most of his early short stories and reviews were on Jewish themes, and a lot of them appeared in a magazine called The Menorah Journal , which he wrote for frequently between and , and where he was an editorial assistant from to The Menorah Journal focussed, as one might expect, on subjects of interest to Jews. Still, he said:. I cannot discover anything in my professional intellectual life which I can specifically trace back to my Jewish birth and rearing.
I should resent it if a critic of my work were to discover in it either faults or virtues which he called Jewish. Around the same time, Trilling was asked to address Jewish students at Columbia. There is no innate quality of Jewishness, he told them. Even at Columbia, Trilling was not talking in a vacuum. Afterward, his former dissertation adviser, Emery Neff, paid a visit to him and his wife, Diana, to explain that he should not understand his promotion to mean that the department would welcome any more Jews. The Trillings were not the kind of people to trim their style to suit the prejudices of people like Emery Neff.
Cohen had been a brilliant English major at Yale, but he had decided not to pursue an academic career because of anti-Semitism. Eventually, Trilling did become a contributor to Commentary, and he and Warshow became good friends. He did not ask the publisher for a fee, out of friendship for Warshow.
The Liberal Imagination is one of the most admired and influential works about classics like Huckleberry Finn and the novels of Henry James. ykoketomel.ml: The Liberal Imagination (New York Review Books Classics) ( ): Lionel Trilling, Louis Menand: Books.
From his break with Communism and the Popular Front to the end, his work was about fighting the evils of institutionalized authority. The recessional at his memorial service, in St. Still, the reason that Trilling published no more fiction after probably had more to do with inner doubts than with mean reviews.
They talked about a novel that Jack Kerouac, who had also been a student at Columbia, was finishing. Kerouac had once been involved in a murder committed by another Columbia student, Lucien Carr: he was arrested for helping Carr conceal the murder weapon.
Trilling insisted to Ginsberg that a novel by Kerouac could not be any good. It was neurotic. His analyst suggested that, feeling guilty for being intellectually superior, Trilling might have chosen not to be superior in all things. The evening with David Riesman in which with absolute precision he laid his finger on my literary trouble, although he did not know it the thing that has kept me from writing—my admiration of a commitment to what I have called the fierce and charismatic writers—as he said, my greater respect for Dostoevsky than Tolstoi.
He was enormously perceptive, very brilliant, on the point. I could not fail to see that my impulse for the fierce and charismatic is connected with all the confused tendencies that I have been discovering in my psn [personality]—which a month ago the perception of seemed so liberating—the meaning of the sadistic ideal in its character as representative of the superego.
Trilling desired success, but he dreaded his motives for succeeding. In the Commentary dream, he does not identify with the victim, with the bus driver; he identifies with the killers. And that is what he did. But now he seemed convinced that every social and personal pathology, from revolutionary violence to narcissism, comes from the refusal to accept that life is conditioned—by the capacities we inherit, by the circumstances we are born into, by the people whose desires conflict with ours, by death.
It was an interesting turn for a man who resented any institutional claims, who found even the obligation to teach graduate students and to haggle with colleagues an intolerable constraint on his genius. Trilling put on a face of dutifulness and deference because he mistrusted his own instincts. But the magazine he wrote it for, The New Freeman , folded, and the review never appeared. That was when Trilling was still a Marxist. Snow and F. But he was accused of abandoning liberalism altogether.
Trilling has evolved into one of the least belligerent and most persuasive spokesmen of the conservative imagination. Irving Kristol called Trilling one of the two major influences on his neoconservatism the other was Leo Strauss ; Diana Trilling claimed that Kristol and his wife, Gertrude Himmelfarb, were mistaken in thinking that Trilling shared their views. Everything in his thought opposes its rule by doctrine. Few critics have spun more nuance than Trilling. Trilling was a writer of many drafts, and his prose shows the trouble he took with it. It reads as though it had been written by a man who worried that an imperfectly balanced sentence could create an opening, however small, through which totalitarian impulses might creep.
His characteristic sentences turn on themselves. They can sometimes seem self-negating:. To suppose that we can think like men of another time is as much of an illusion as to suppose that we can think in a wholly different way. The poet, it is true, is an effect of environment, but we must remember that he is no less a cause.
Perhaps only science could effectively undertake the task of freeing sexuality from science itself. This intense conviction of the existence of the self apart from culture is, as culture well knows, its noblest and most generous achievement.
The cast of the mind that produced these sentences is not paradoxical. Trilling saw everything under a double aspect: as a condition and a consequence, a trend and a backlash, a pathway to enlightenment and a dead end of self-deception. He was a humanist who believed that works of literature can speak to us across time. That was what he had been taught as an undergraduate, in a pioneering Great Books course created by an English professor named John Erskine; it is still the educational philosophy of Columbia College.
But he believed it with weakening conviction; he could see all the arguments for considering humanism a vain promise. Must its postures seem so beside the point? Is it right that I should now be made nothing but uncomfortable by E. They arose from his experiences in the classroom, where he witnessed something that should not have been mysterious to a Marxist, which is that books mean different things in different periods.
To take another writer important to Trilling: D. Teaching literature, therefore, involves a serious problem of translation.
The adversarial is part of the system; it helps to hold the other parts in place. Responsible liberal people feel better adjusted for having an appreciation of art and ideas that are contemptuous of the values of responsible liberal people. It helps the world seem round. And exciting , if you consider how deep I am and what dread beasts lie at my bottom. Have it well in mind that a knowledge of me contributes materially to your being whole, or well-rounded, men.
Humanism might be a false friend. This willingness to follow out the logic of his own premises, to register doubts about a faith for which he is still celebrated by people who are offended by attempts to understand books as fully and complexly implicated in their historical times, is the finest thing about his work. I just liked the way Trilling could turn a thought.
I was taught to think about literature as part of the history of ideas, and to believe that people wrote novels and plays and poems because they had something to say. I still think that this is true. I think that literature is a report on experience. It is, as Trilling felt in his darker, anthropological moods, simply part of the cultural activity of making meaning.